C14 Dating

[blackstrap]

Setting aside the possible variance in decay rate of C14. How might the ages found by C14 be otherwise in error?

If I recall, C14 exists because of the interaction between cosmic rays and nitrogen. What might speed up or slow down this interaction? Scientists have already made some adjustments in the dating using C14 because of the apparent exponential decrease in strength of the earth's magnetic field over the last 150 years,which if extrapolated back 15-20,000 years,show a field strength capable of deflecting cosmic rays to a greater extent than now. What other factors may have contributed to a change in the amount of cosmic interaction? Atmospheric density perhaps?

[Tarski]

LOL! CFR but "don't bother with creationist references"

AS if someone who holds a creation World view would have bogus "Carbon-14 dating references"

and someone who holds a Evolution World view would have real "Carbon-14 dating references".

How silly!

I will repeat (whether you happen to hold a "creation" belief or an "evolution from nothing" belief), Carbon 14 testing has been proven to be highly unreliable on several levels.

Peace,

Ceeboo

CFR

[Tarski]

Setting aside the possible variance in decay rate of C14. How might the ages found by C14 be otherwise in error?

If I recall, C14 exists because of the interaction between cosmic rays and nitrogen. What might speed up or slow down this interaction? Scientists have already made some adjustments in the dating using C14 because of the apparent exponential decrease in strength of the earth's magnetic field over the last 150 years,which if extrapolated back 15-20,000 years,show a field strength capable of deflecting cosmic rays to a greater extent than now. What other factors may have contributed to a change in the amount of cosmic interaction? Atmospheric density perhaps?

CFR

[Tarski]

Source:

Hovind, Kent

Get serious.

[Tarski]

LOL! CFR but "don't bother with creationist references"

AS if someone who holds a creation World view would have bogus "Carbon-14 dating references"

and someone who holds a Evolution World view would have real "Carbon-14 dating references".

What you called the "evolution world view" is part of science (as opposed to internet anti-knowledge). The creationist world view is its opposite.

I need not respect a view just because some group holds it. I also do not respect the flat earth world view (and yes it is comparable).

Evolution is a fact a secure as the existence of germs and for all the same kind of reasons.

I am sick of having to pretend otherwise just so some religious person doesn't get offended.

If the germ theory of infectious disease were thought to threaten biblical notions, it would be opposed in the same way as evolution.

If quantum mechanics were thought to threaten biblical notions, it would be opposed in the same way as evolution.

If electric circuit theory were thought to threaten biblical notions, it would be opposed in the same way as evolution.

[Ceeboo]

Evolution is a fact a secure as the existence of germs and for all the same kind of reasons.

I am sick of having to pretend otherwise just so some religious person doesn't get offended.

Hi Tarski,

First, please don't be "sick and tired" of anything (This is a discussion board )

What type of evolution do you suggest is a fact?

Peace,

Ceeboo

[Tarski]

http://pages.csam.mo...340chemnuc.html

There is a 1.5% variance between ⁷Be decay rates depending on the chemical they are embeded in. So no the decay rate is not constant. At least for 7Be

Continuing... two other teams have replicated variableness in decay rates of Uranium.

Who's being desperate now tarski?

Zak,

Let me explain something to you once and for all--something that if understood would cause you to seriously reduce the number of posts of the type you are so fond of.

A claim of something by one or two researchers does not constitute scientific fact. In fact, one can find a claim for just about anything one wants--especially in the new free-for-all climate of internet publishing.

What matters are those results that have withstood the test of time and have been replicated where possible and have withstood the criticism of the scientific community.

Do you remember the claims of cold fusion? Did they withstand the test of time and experiment? How are they regarded now?

As if to underscore this point, your reference was to blurb by a afficionado of cold fusion.

You provide essentially nothing for us with these links isolated claims by typically fringe scientists and even less by linking to thinks put out by the likes of the scientific fraud and convicted criminal Kent Hovind.

For laypersons thinking about science and religion, the only thing that should cause us to sit up and take notice are those things that have passed over into the body of accepted, tested, mainstream science.

Since one can find claims for just about anything on the internet, why should we think your isolated obscure and ill-understood references to such claims are of significance? (Why 7Be anyway?)

I believe the fact is that the half-life of C14 has been tested to be constant under the widest variety of circumstance--certainly those circumstances that prevailed on earth over the last several million years. On top of that, quantum mechanics predicts this to be the case.

Linking us to these isolated fringe claims is desperate Zak.

Find a reputable scientific reference that claims that C14 decay has been established to be variable in a biological setting and then maybe you will have something.

[Anijen]

First I want to side with Tarski here minus his snarky remarks he has a point. Carbon dating is pretty reliable and I add in no way diminishes my faith in the church. Having said that I want to ask Zakuska do you have any relatively newer sources? It seems you are quoting some work that was done in its pioneering stages I am sure the equipment and processes have been fine tuned since, it least I would imagine they have since the late sixties and even the eighties... BTW I agree to date the sample/thingy (if able, some stuff just has no carbon in it) and not just the area around the sample...

Anijen

who happens to believes in a old (very old) earth not the 6000 year young one.

[Tarski]

What type of evolution do you suggest is a fact?

The kind of evolutionary theory that tells us that humans and chimps have a common ancestor.

The standard textbook kind. (Common descent is a fact and evolution by natural selection is the best theory of how it happened.)

[bu11fr0g]

"accepted, tested, mainstream science"

Tarski,

It is important to point out the weaknesses of "accepted , tested, mainstream science" especially when and how it can go astray. Think of all the Nobel-prizeworthy (and Nobel-prize winning, but subsequently disproven) science coming from the fringes of the scientific community.

How do you determine when "accepted, tested, mainstream science" is reliable and when it is unreliable?

When do you feel that it is reliable enough to stake your life on it?

[Ceeboo]

The kind of evolutionary theory that tells us that humans and chimps have a common ancestor.

The standard textbook kind. (Common descent is a fact and evolution by natural selection is the best theory of how it happened.)

Hey again Tarski,

Can you give me one example of this macro-evolution you suggest?

Peace,

Ceeboo

[Ceeboo]

Tarski??

Where did you go?

Peace,

Ceeboo (A human with only human ancestors- no great great great great great great Grandpa rock )

[shalamabobbi]

The constancy of decay rates has been demonstrated in general through ancient starlight analysis, decay halos in rocks and the analysis of the 2 billion year old natural reactor at Oklo.

Nuclear forces are not subject in general to influence from environmental factors - temperature, pressure, etc.

The fact that very light elements are affected slightly only applies to beta decay (where valence electrons are very near the nucleus).

This would be shown by carrying out the calculations with quantum mechanics but the quantum n-body problem cannot be solved analytically.

C14 is produced by Neutron bombardment of N14. So the magnetic field of the earth plays no role whatsoever as neutrons are uncharged particles. Magnetic fields only affect the motion of charged particles.

C14 decays through beta decay however. If a 1% variation will help to make any significant change in measured dates you can decide for yourselves. Likely such would fall within the error margins.

If you consider C14 in isolation, you might successfully cast some doubt upon the method. But it agrees with tree ring analysis, with ice core sampling and with varve deposits.

Now you might argue that each of these methods is subject to error but you will have a difficult time explaining why completely unrelated/disconnected methods would all be flawed in such a manner as to agree with one another..

As to Zakuska's idea that some specimen might legitimately be as young as it's C14 date but rejected because of being an outlier data point I would agree. But that is the nature of the beast. When you get sufficient samples to gain a statistical confidence then the story may change.

What else would you really prefer? It is science after all and must only put forward what we can demonstrate to be valid with a high degree of confidence..

On a side note Richard G Scott mentioned quarks in this last conference, so we can all accept the reality of quarks now..

[Tarski]

Hey again Tarski,

Can you give me one example of this macro-evolution you suggest?

One celled animal ------> humans

Questions?

Oh, I guess you want something like a speciation that happened in your lifetime huh?

Funny, I guess if I believed in micro-erosion but not macro-erosion I would not believe that the Grand Canyon was formed by erosion!

Then I would ask you petulantly for an example of macroerosion. Name one! (No one ever saw a canyon form dude!)

Well, even in your lifetime (a flash in the pan geologically) there are still some examples of speciation:

http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2009/02/macroevolution-examples-and-evidence.html

[krose]

Can you give me one example of this macro-evolution you suggest?

That's a tough one, but I'll give it a shot. How about... every living thing you see around you, including in the mirror?

Ceeboo (A human with only human ancestors- no great great great great great great Grandpa rock )

That sounds very Hovind-like. He loves to talk about "lots and lots of rain falling on rocks" that created life (or something like that).

[Tarski]

That's a tough one, but I'll give it a shot. How about... every living thing you see around you, including in the mirror?

That sounds very Hovind-like. He loves to talk about "lots and lots of rain falling on rocks" that created life (or something like that).

That is exactly where it came from. Hovind is one of the stupidest men alive and he puts his stupidity on display while laughing arrogantly at people who actual know something.

Here is a little test for ya'll.

Creationists like to ask this question:

Why aren't monkeys still evolving into humans?

Exam:

1) Why is the above question extremely stupid?

2) Why shouldn't you even begin to think of arguing against evolutionary science if you are tempted to ask the above stupid question?

[Zakuska]

Heres another knee slapper...

Claim CD011.4:

A freshly killed seal was carbon-14 dated at 1300 years old.

Source:

Hovind, Kent, n.d. Doesn't carbon dating or potassium argon dating prove the Earth is millions of years old? http://www.drdino.co...argondating.jsp

Response:

1. This claim derives from Wakefield (1971):
   Radiocarbon analysis of specimens obtained from mummified seals in southern Victoria Land has yielded ages ranging from 615 to 4,600 years. However, Antarctica sea water has significantly lower carbon-14 activity than that accepted as the world standard. Therefore, radiocarbon dating of marine organisms yields apparent ages that are older than true ages, but by an unknown and possibly variable amount. Therefore, the several radiocarbon ages determined for the mummified seal carcasses cannot be accepted as correct. For example, the apparent radiocarbon age of the Lake Bonney seal known to have been dead no more than a few weeks was determined to be 615 +/- 100 years. A seal freshly killed at McMurdo had an apparent age of 1,300 years.

   This is the well-known reservoir effect that occurs also with mollusks and other animals that live in the water. It happens when "old" carbon is introduced into the water. In the above case of the seal, old carbon dioxide is present within deep ocean bottom water that has been circulating through the ocean for thousands of years before upwelling along the Antarctic coast.
   The seals feed off of animals that live in a nutrient-rich upwelling zone. The water that is upwelling has been traveling along the bottom for a few thousand years before surfacing. The carbon dioxide in it came from the atmosphere before the water sank. Thus, the carbon in the sea water is a couple of thousand years "old" from when it was in the atmosphere, and its radiocarbon content reflects this time. Plants incorporate this "old" carbon in them as they grow. Animals eat the plants; seals eat the animals, and the "old" carbon from the bottom waters is passed through the food chain. As a result, the radiocarbon content reflects a mixture of old radiocarbon, which is thousands of years old, and contemporaneous radiocarbon from the atmosphere. The result is an apparent age that differs from the true age of the seal.
   The reservoir effect is well known by scientists, who work hard to understand the limitations of their tools. It is explained, for example, in Faure (1986) and Higham (n.d.). Contrary to creationist propaganda, limitations of a tool do not invalidate the tool.

References:

1. Faure, G., 1986. Principles of Isotope Geology, 2nd ed. New York: Wiley.
2. Higham, Thomas, n.d. Corrections to radiocarbon dates. http://www.c14dating.com/corr.html
3. Wakefield, Dort, Jr., 1971. Mummified seals of southern Victoria Land. Antarctic Journal 6(5): 210-211.

http://www.talkorigi...CD/CD011_4.html

Hey, I like the reservor effect thing-a-ma-bob! I wonder how many mollusk eating seafaring people who have been carbon dated wrong because of the reservior effect and the eating of carbon deprived sea creatures?!

See carbon isn't obsorbed at a constant rate no more than Vitamin D or calcium or any other vitamin or mineral. And it has much to do with environmental conditions, and a gagilian other variable unkowns.

Heck... I could skew my carbon-14 content by eating OLD carbon too!

[krose]

That is exactly where it came from. Hovind is one of the stupidest men alive and he puts his stupidity on display while laughing arrogantly at people who actual know something.

But he has a 'doctorate' from that house in Colorado Springs!

I have to admit that he's entertaining to listen to, in a can't-look-away-from-the-crash, Glenn Beck sort of way. You just wonder what he's going to come up with next. That reminds me, did you catch Mr. Beck's recent explanation of why evolution is obviously wrong?

[Zakuska]

Here's something for you Tarski.

Perturbation of nuclear decay rates during the solar flare of 2006 December 13

Astroparticle Physics

Volume 31, Issue 6, July 2009, Pages 407-411

Jere H. Jenkinsa and Ephraim Fischbach, a, a

Physics Department, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA

Received 2 April 2009; revised 20 April 2009; accepted 25 April 2009. Available online 7 May 2009.

Abstract

Recently, correlations have been reported between fluctuations in nuclear decay rates and Earth

[blackstrap]

Just for S!!!! and giggles I looked up the wikipedia article on radiocarbon dating. If one was to read the part under 'The need for calibration" one will notice that the amount of C14 varies because of variation in the earth's MAGNETOSPHERE.This is adjusted for in the calibrations. It was not always so.Of course we all know that wiki is the least accurate resource ...

[blackstrap]

Some of you ,who hold to the idea that science does not have a death-grip on all truth as it applies to dating things,may want to read the(highly suspect ) article in www.christiananswers.net about flaws in carbon and other radiometric dating.

[shalamabobbi]

Just for S!!!! and giggles I looked up the wikipedia article on radiocarbon dating. If one was to read the part under 'The need for calibration" one will notice that the amount of C14 varies because of variation in the earth's MAGNETOSPHERE.This is adjusted for in the calibrations. It was not always so.Of course we all know that wiki is the least accurate resource ...

Hi blackstrap,

Thanks for the correction. It's been a couple of decades and I'm a bit rusty. Neutrons are secondary particles generated by cosmic rays.

The variation of C14 is known and understood however. That is the reason it is calibrated with the other methods. So any variation is irrelevant.

The ways in which the reservoir effect can cause problems are also understood and taken into account and when they can't be, C14 isn't used.

You might want to include in your studies some of the sites that debunk the creationist objections.

[shalamabobbi]

Hmmm... apparently the sun can cause fluctuations and changes in nuclear decay rates.

Here are some responses/comments to the article of Zakuska's post..

The decay rate was ever so slightly faster in winter than in summer.

..noticed that the rate dropped slightly during the flare

it would seem that it might have a very slight effect so as to mean that whatever is being dated is actually marginally older than the dating would indicate.

we report the detection of a significant decrease in the decay of 54Mn during the solar flare of 2006 December 13 (note that this causes an error causing dates to be older than measured)

The fractional change in 32Si counting rates between perihelion and aphelion is approximately 3

[Zakuska]

Hi blackstrap,

Thanks for the correction. It's been a couple of decades and I'm a bit rusty. Neutrons are secondary particles generated by cosmic rays.

The variation of C14 is known and understood however. That is the reason it is calibrated with the other methods. So any variation is irrelevant.

The ways in which the reservoir effect can cause problems are also understood and taken into account and when they can't be, C14 isn't used.

You might want to include in your studies some of the sites that debunk the creationist objections.

Seems to me you have some cobwebs to dust off as well...

Examples of carbon reservoirs are found in the atmosphere, the

lithosphere (the Earth

[shalamabobbi]

This isn't news Zakuska. What specifically are you trying to arrive at or prove with this post?